Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Media exposure and individuals’ emergency preparedness behaviors for T

coping with natural and human-made disasters
Yuxiang Honga, Jong-Suk Kimb,∗, Lihua Xiongb
a
School of Management, Hangzhou Dianzi University, Hangzhou, 310018, PR China
b
State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430072, PR China

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Handling Editor: Sander van der Linden Emergency preparedness among individuals, families, and communities is essential to increase emergency
Keywords: management resilience. The present study aimed to analyze the role of media exposure in changing emergency
Emergency preparedness behaviors preparedness behaviors for natural and human-made disasters. We checked the adequacy of measurements using
Media exposure confirmatory factor analysis and tested the hypotheses with hierarchical regression analysis based on 688
Risk perception questionnaires in Hangzhou, China. The Johnson–Neyman technique was used to test the conditional effect of
Disaster experiences media exposure on risk perception and emergency preparedness behaviors. The results indicated that (1) media
exposure had a positive effect on emergency preparedness behaviors and risk perception; (2) risk perception
played a mediating role between media exposure and emergency preparedness cooperation behaviors; (3) dis-
aster experiences had a moderating role between media exposure and risk perception; (4) disaster experiences
moderated the relationship between media exposure and emergency preparedness cooperation behaviors; and
(5) risk perception mediated the effect of the interaction between media exposure and disaster experiences on
emergency preparedness cooperation behaviors.

1. Introduction (Kapucu, 2008). Therefore, a research question of great practical im-

Emergency preparedness refers to the knowledge, capability, re-
sources, and activities of governments, organizations, communities, and
individuals that can adequately predict, respond to, and recover from
the emergencies (UNISDR, 2009). Given the multi-sources, trans-
boundary, and non-linear nature of emergencies, governments cannot
ensure the safety of all people in all scenarios. Especially at the grass-
roots level, the integration of the government's emergency management
capacity, the cross-functional and cross-regional coordination, and
inter-departmental emergency decision-making and dynamic super-
vision are all difficult. Recent disasters have revealed the limitation of
governments' real-time action and mobility to actually help the public,
especially when disasters hit heavily populated areas (Tomio, Sato,
Matsuda, Koga, & Mizumura, 2014). Emergency preparedness of in-
dividuals, families, and communities is thus essential to increase
emergency management resilience (Kapucu, 2008).
Indeed, as potential exposure to disasters continues to increase,
emergency preparedness of individuals, families, and communities is
even more necessary in order to ensure that people are ready to help
themselves and their family, friends, and neighbors during a disaster
portance is how to strengthen emergency preparedness ability of in-
dividuals at the grass-roots level, as well as identifying an emergency
response mechanism for communities and families that can give full
play to the public as the “sensors” of hazards, and as the “vanguard” of
the first emergency response.
Emergency preparedness focuses on human behaviors (Ejeta,
Ardalan, & Paton, 2011). To develop enthusiasm for household emer-
gency preparedness, researchers need to understand the formation
mechanisms of emergency preparedness behaviors. Previous studies
have evaluated a variety of determinants of household preparedness,
including a wide range of socio-demographic characteristics (Eisenman
et al., 2006; McNeill, Dunlop, Heath, Skinner, & Morrison, 2013;
Murphy, Cody, Frank, Glik, & Ang, 2009; Paek, Hilyard, Freimuth,
Barge, & Mindlin, 2010; Tomio et al., 2014), such as age, gender, in-
come, education, home ownership, and length of residence. Ad-
ditionally, psychological factors, such as level of risk perception, self-
efficacy, and response efficacy, have been found to influence household
preparedness (Eisenman et al., 2006; Martin, Bender, & Raish, 2007;
McNeill et al., 2013; Miceli, Sotgiu, & Settanni, 2008; Murphy et al.,
2009; Paek et al., 2010).

∗
Corresponding author.Department of Hydrology and Water Resources School of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Wuhan University, Wuhan,
430072, PR China
E-mail address: jongsuk@whu.edu.cn (J.-S. Kim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.005
Received 29 June 2018; Received in revised form 11 April 2019; Accepted 11 April 2019
Available online 16 April 2019
0272-4944/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Y. Hong, et al.
The media plays an extremely crucial role in promoting emergency
preparedness (Levac, Toal-Sullivan, & O'Sullivan, 2012), and some
scholars have identified significant influences of the media on people's
emergency preparedness in empirical research (Murphy et al., 2009;
Paek et al., 2010). However, few studies have examined how media
exposure affects preparedness behaviors. On the one hand, in the em-
pirical studies that do exist, media exposure has been seen as a direct
influence on emergency preparedness behavior; however, media ex-
posure can also affect risk perception (Fleming, Thorson, & Zhang,
2006; Morton & Duck, 2001; Yim & Vaganov, 2003). Risk perception
has been shown to be an essential predictor of emergency preparedness
behavior (De Dominicis, Fornara, Ganucci Cancellieri, Twigger-Ross, &
Bonaiuto, 2015; Martin et al., 2007; McNeill et al., 2013; Miceli et al.,
2008; Miceli & Settanni, 2008; Murphy et al., 2009; Paton, 2003).
Considering the potential mediating role of risk perception is conducive
to developing a more comprehensive understanding of the role of media
exposure on emergency preparedness behaviors. On the other hand,
relatively limited literature has discussed the limits of the influence of
media exposure on emergency preparedness behaviors. For example,
individuals with different types of disaster experiences may be differ-
entially affected by media exposure, leading to individual differences in
emergency preparedness behaviors.
Thus, this study aimed to understand the problems involved in
human–environment interactions through the relationship between
individuals and the disaster environments surrounding them and
thereby to improve the emergency preparedness and response plans
through rational recognition of natural and human-made disasters.
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between
media exposure and emergency preparedness behaviors and several
factors affecting it. First, we aimed to directly examine the effect of
media exposure on emergency preparedness behaviors. Second, the
mediating effect of risk perception on the relationship between
media exposure and emergency preparedness behaviors was eval-
uated. Last, we assessed the moderating influence of disaster ex-
periences on the pathway from media exposure to emergency pre-
paredness behaviors.
2. Theoretical development
2.1. Emergency preparedness behaviors
Emergency preparedness generally had two targets, namely, to
help people avert or avoid threats, and to build capability to increase
the effectiveness of response to unavoidable threats (Perry &
Mushkatel, 2008; Twigg, 2004). One of the most common ways to
analyze household emergency preparedness is to check household
emergency stockpiles. However, this method has limitations (Levac
et al., 2012), as it is difficult to identify whether people hold these
items coincidentally or have intentionally collected them for emer-
gency purposes (Paek et al., 2010). Tomio et al. (2014) assessed
household preparation levels using five basic preparatory activities:
securing furniture, stockpiling food and water, knowing the location
of designated evacuation centers, preparing an emergency kit, and
discussing disaster response with family members. Individuals’ beha-
viors can typically be divided into cooperative and non-cooperative
(Fowler & Christakis, 2010; Kurzban & Houser, 2005). Cooperative
behavior refers to the behavior that requires the collaboration of two
or more individuals and agents, while non-cooperative behavior refers
to behaviors that do not require cooperation among individuals.
Therefore, based on previous research, we divided preparedness be-
haviors into two patterns: 1) preparedness by cooperation (e.g., skills
training, emergency drill, volunteer activity), and 2) preparedness by
individual (e.g., stockpiling). In the present study, we divided pre-
paredness behaviors into two types: cooperation behaviors and
stockpiling behaviors.
83
Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91
2.2. Media exposure and emergency preparedness behaviors
Media exposure is an important antecedent to the attitude-inten-
tion-behavior model in environmental psychology (Lee, 2011). Through
the media, including both new and traditional media, individuals can
learn about their environment and potential threats. If dangerous si-
tuations are approaching or requiring attention, the public can be
warned by the media (Perse, 2001), allowing them to engage in pro-
tective behaviors. Additionally, by setting up and initiating an emer-
gency preparedness agenda, media can build public responsibility and
safety culture, make some problems more prominent, and increase
focus on those problems and on emergency preparedness in general
(Holbert, Kwak, & Shah, 2003; McCombs & Reynolds, 2002). Also, the
media expresses social norms (Lee, 2011) and can exert social pressure
to engage in an emergency preparedness behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In
addition, the media widen the limits of personal experience and assist
the public to understand various emergencies around the world re-
sulting from human-made and natural disasters (Mutz, 1998). By in-
creasing individuals’ self-efficacy, this can promote their protective
behaviors such as preparedness (Glanz, Rimer, & Lewis, 2002; Paek
et al., 2010).
Paek et al. (2010) found that emergency news exposure is positively
associated with the number of emergency items owned and the state of
an individual's emergency preparedness, which includes both stock-
piling and cooperation behaviors. Thus, in this study, we evaluated the
impact of media exposure by dividing emergency preparedness beha-
viors into cooperation behaviors and stockpiling behaviors. We pro-
posed the following hypotheses:
H1a. Media exposure has a positive influence on emergency
preparedness cooperation behaviors.
H1b. Media exposure has a positive influence on emergency
preparedness stockpiling behaviors.
2.3. Risk perception as a mediator
Risk is a social and cultural construct, and a type of perception in-
volving individuals’ judgment and the evaluation of hazards, which are
determined by the norms, values, and culture (Renn, 1998; Rohrmann,
1998). In the process of risk perception, the media has the function of
reporting, elaborating, attributing, and constructing a picture of
emergencies. It is one of the important information channels for in-
dividuals to understand and judge the risk. If there is an increase in
public debate or media coverage on a certain risk, then this may in-
crease the likelihood that an individual perceives this risk (Sjöberg,
2000; Yim & Vaganov, 2003). The positive effect of media exposure on
risk perception has been verified extensively. Fleming et al. (2006)
found that exposure to a local newspaper was positively related to food
safety risk perception, while Morton and Duck (2001) found that
newspaper information on skin cancer was an important predictor of
skin cancer risk perception. In addition, the positive effect of new media
exposure on risk perception has also been verified in existing literature
(Zhu & Yao, 2018). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:
H2. Media exposure has a positive influence on risk perception.
When individuals perceive disasters as a threat to them, they are
motivated to take protective action (Paton, 2003). Protective Motiva-
tion Theory (PMT) and the Protective Action Decision Model (PADM)
both suggest that risk perception is a significant variable influencing
individual protective behaviors (Lindell & Perry, 2012). The positive
effects of risk perception on emergency preparedness behaviors have
been verified in previous studies (De Dominicis et al., 2015; Martin
et al., 2007; McNeill et al., 2013; Miceli et al., 2008; Miceli & Settanni,
2008；; Murphy et al., 2009). In light of Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 2, this
study proposed the following hypotheses:
Y. Hong, et al.
H3a. Risk perception mediates the relationship between media
exposure and emergency preparedness cooperation behaviors.
H3b. Risk perception mediates the relationship between media
exposure and emergency preparedness stockpiling behaviors.
2.4. Moderating effect of disaster experiences
The perception of disaster risk can be generated from direct or in-
direct disaster experiences. Individuals with enough disaster experi-
ences have an immediate understanding of the disaster situations and
can view the media's communication content more theoretically and
critically. On the other hand, those with limited disaster experiences are
more dependent on media content to help construct their cognition of
the disaster, which can easily magnify their risk perception (Kasperson
et al., 1988). Siegrist and Gutscher (2006) also proposed that the in-
formation provided by mass media influences risk perception but only
among individuals with low disaster experience. Besides the cognitive
process, emotion is another important driving factor of emergency
preparedness. For individuals with limited disaster experiences, it is
easier to develop feelings such as fear than it is for people with prior
disaster experiences (Keselman, Slaughter, & Patel, 2005), because fear
can contribute to an increase in risk perception and the motivation for
engaging preparedness behaviors. Thus, this study proposed the fol-
lowing hypotheses:
H4a. Disaster experiences have a strong moderating role in the
relationship between media exposure and emergency preparedness
cooperation behaviors. When disaster experience is high, the positive
relationship between media exposure and emergency preparedness
cooperation behaviors is weak.
H4b. Disaster experiences have a strong moderating influence on the
relationship between media exposure and emergency preparedness
stockpiling behaviors. When disaster experience is high, the positive
relationship between media exposure and emergency preparedness
stockpiling behaviors is weak.
H4c. Disaster experiences moderate the relationship between media
exposure and risk perception. When disaster experience is high, the
relationship between media exposure and risk perception is weak.
Moreover, this study further proposed that risk perception mediates
the interaction between media exposure and disaster experiences on
emergency preparedness behaviors. Specifically, when media exposure
is high, individuals with high disaster experiences will change their
emergency preparedness behaviors to a lesser extent than will those
with low disaster experiences, because their risk perception level also
changes less. Thus, we proposed the following hypotheses:
H4d. The interaction between media exposure and disaster experiences
on emergency preparedness cooperation is mediated by risk perception.
H4e. The interaction between media exposure and disaster experiences
on emergency preparedness stockpiling behaviors is mediated by risk
perception. The research model of this study is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. The relationship between the variables in the models proposed in this
study.
84
Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91
3. Material and methods
3.1. Study areas
This study was based on a survey conducted in Hangzhou City in
Zhejiang Province, China. Hangzhou is an ideal place to study emer-
gencies and disasters, as it has a noticeable temperature difference
between the winter and summer, and can be affected by both freezing
and hot weather. As it is located near Hangzhou Bay, it is typically
affected by typhoons each year. It is a place where various accidents
and natural disasters can occur due to flood, earthquakes, and tropical
cyclones. Also, Hangzhou is one of the first cities in China to have
begun to release official information using new forms of media.
Therefore, in this study, four representative districts of Hangzhou,
China were selected and studied: Gongshu, Xihu, Shangcheng, and
Xiacheng, which cover 34 sub-districts.
3.2. Study participants
According to the sample sizes of previous studies (Martin et al.,
2007; Miceli et al., 2008; McNeill et al., 2013), a total of 800 ques-
tionnaires were provided to residents in the four representative districts
in Hangzhou through door-to-door visits. The participants were classi-
fied by age and gender and were selected from adults over 18 years old
living in Hangzhou for at least five years. The participants were in-
formed of the purpose of the survey and asked for permission before
questionnaires were handed out. After screening the questionnaires due
to missing responses from participants, the final sample consisted of
688 adult respondents who were interviewed from July 2015 to Sep-
tember 2015. The questionnaires were completed by 330 men (48.0%)
and 358 women (52.1%), and the effective response rate was 86.0%.
Regarding age, 20 (2.9%) participants were 20 years and younger, 167
(24.3%) participants were 21–30 years, 186 (27.0%) participants were
31–40 years, 155 (22.5%) participants were 40–50 years, 124 (18.0%)
participants were 50–60 years, 36 (5.2%) participants were older than
60 years. Regarding education, 88 (12.8%) participants had completed
less than high school, 134 (19.5%) participants had high school de-
grees, 154 (20.6%) participants had junior college degree, 297 (43.2%)
participants had bachelor's degrees, and 29 (4.2%) participants had a
master's degree or higher. A total of 241 (35.0%) participants had a
family annual income lower than CNY 80,000 (USD 11,550), 178
(25.9%) participants CNY 80,000–120,000 (USD 11,550–17,325), 175
(25.4%) participants CNY 120,000–200,000 (USD 17,325–28,876), 67
(9.7%) participants CNY 200,000–300,000 (USD 28,876–43,313), and
27 (3.9%) participants higher than CNY 300,000 (USD 43,313).
3.3. Measures
To ensure accurate measurement, we translated the English version
of the scale into Chinese and then listened to experts’ opinions on how
to modify each scale. Later, professionals fluent in English translated
the Chinese text into English, and compared the original English version
with the English version with Chinese to determine the consistency
between the Chinese and English scales. After repeated verification, the
translation was modified to meet the necessary requirements of Chinese
grammar while maintaining the original meaning.
3.3.1. Media exposure
To measure media exposure, we developed a set of items (Table A.1)
that covered two types of media - traditional media and new media.
Referring to the questionnaires by Fleming et al. (2006), Murphy et al.
(2009), and Lee (2011), we measured traditional media exposure by
asking participants how frequently they: (1) read the newspaper, (2)
read magazines, (3) listen to the radio, (4) watch TV, using a 5-point
scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). Cronbach's alpha was calculated
for the scale (α = 0.720). We measured new media exposure by asking
Y. Hong, et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91

participants how frequently they: (1) use the Internet, and (2) use a 3.3.6. Analytic strategy
mobile phone, using a 5-point scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). We tested the adequacy of measurements using confirmatory factor
Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the scale (α = 0.605). We calcu- analysis (CFA) and the hypotheses with hierarchical regression analysis.
lated the overall score of media exposure by estimating the average Besides, the Johnson–Neyman technique was used to test the condi-
rating of each of the two types of media separately, and then the tional effect of media exposure on risk perception and emergency
average of those two values. preparedness behaviors. SPSS 19.0 (including the PROCESS), AMOS
17.0, and R 3.5.1 were used to analyze the data.
3.3.2. Risk perception
To measure risk perception, we developed a set of items (Table A.2) 4. Results
that covered four types of disasters—natural disaster, accidental dis-
asters, public health events, and public safety events, based on disaster 4.1. Preliminary analysis
types in the existing literature (Martin et al., 2007; McNeill et al., 2013;
Murphy et al., 2009). First, we asked participants to assess the severity We conducted CFA on variables including media exposure, risk
of seven possible natural disasters, including flooding, typhoons, perception, disaster experiences, and preparedness cooperation beha-
earthquakes, rainstorms, freezing weather, hailstones, and experiencing viors (we did not include preparedness stockpiling behaviors, because it
hyperthermia. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the scale was a single-time construct). The result shows that the
(α = 0.917). Second, we asked participants to assess the severity of Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value is 0.771 > 0.7, and the Bartlett's Test of
three accidental disasters, namely fires, bombing, traffic accident. Sphericity is significant. This result means that the data have good
Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the accidental disaster scale structure validity, and are suitable for factor analysis. As shown in
(α = 0.864). Third, we asked participants to assess the severity of four Table 1, all the loading of the items was higher than 0.50. The average
public health events, including food poisoning, infectious disease, water variance extracted (AVE) for these scales was 0.535, 0.805, 0.459, and
pollution, and air pollution. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the 0.810, respectively, indicating adequate discriminant validity. As
scale (α = 0.912). Additionally, we asked participants to assess the shown in Table 2, the square root of AVE for each construct was higher
severity of the two types of public safety events. One was public se- than the correlations between it and all other constructs, meaning
curity incidences, such as theft, robbery, kidnapping, and the other was discriminant validity thus was good (Fomell & Larker, 1981). In addi-
riots. Cronbach's alpha was calculated for the scale (α = 0.915). All the tion, we used AMOS 17.0 to verify the discriminant validity of these
items using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all severe) to 5 (extremely five variables. We included all five scales in a measurement model and
severe). We calculated the overall score of risk perception by estimating allowed latent constructs to freely covariate. The five-factor model had
the average rating of each of the four types of disasters separately, and a reasonable fit to the data (χ2/df = 3.100, incremental fit index
then the average of those four values. (IFI) = 0.965, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.965, root mean squire
error of approximation (RMSEA = 0.055). Subsequently, we con-
strained emergency preparedness stockpiling and cooperation beha-
3.3.3. Disaster experiences
viors to be part of the same factor, and found that the four-factor model
Referring to the questionnaire by Paek et al. (2010), we asked in-
fit was worse (χ2/df = 4.315, IFI = 0.943, CFI = 0.943,
dividuals to indicate which of the disasters mentioned above they had
RMSEA = 0.069). Based on this, we constrained media exposure and
experienced. The items are shown in Table A.3. We calculated the
risk perception, and the three-factor model goodness of fit continued to
overall experience score by estimating the score for each type of dis-
worsen (χ2/df = 4.850, IFI = 0.931, CFI = 0.931, RMSEA = 0.075).
aster experience using the number of disasters experienced divided by
Then, we constrained stockpiling, cooperation, media exposure, risk
the total number of disasters of this type mentioned above and then
perception, and experience to one factor, and the double-factor model
calculating the average of those four values.
goodness of fit continued to deteriorate (χ2/df = 8.168, IFI = 0.868,
CFI = 0.867, RMSEA = 0.102). Finally, we constructed a one-factor
3.3.4. Emergency preparedness behaviors model including all five variables, and the model fit was again worse
Self-reported behaviors, which we looked at in this study, are dif- (χ2/df = 26.453, IFI = 0.524, CFI = 0.523, RMSEA = 0.192). Thus,
ferent from objectively measured behaviors. To measure emergency the five variables had proper discriminant validation and represent five
preparedness behaviors, we developed a set of items (Table A.4) on the different constructs.
basis of the existing literature (Miceli et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009; Correlation coefficients between the variables are also reported in
Paek et al., 2010). To measure cooperation behaviors, we asked in- Table 2. Media exposure was positively associated with risk perception
dividuals to estimate the frequency of each of the following three and the two types of emergency preparedness behaviors. Risk
specific community interactions on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very
often): attending emergency skills training, taking part in an emergency Table 1
drill, and attending an emergency volunteer service. Cronbach's alpha Factor loading of items.
was calculated for the scale (α = 0.893). To measure stockpiling be-
Construct Item Loading CR AVE
havior, we asked individuals to indicate which of the six following re-
commended supplies they possessed: a working flashlight, a fire ex- Media exposure traditional media 0.639 0.694 0.535
tinguisher, fresh water, and emergency food for 72 h, a first aid kit, a new media 0.813
Risk perception natural disaster 0.857 0.943 0.805
gas mask, and cloth face mask. The summary stockpiling score is ranged
accidental disasters 0.927
from 0 (possessed none of these) to 6 (maintained all of the recommended public health 0.905
supplies). public safety 0.898
Disaster Experience natural disaster 0.665 0.772 0.459
accidental disasters 0.682
3.3.5. Control variables public health 0.667
Gender, age, education, and family income were selected as control public safety 0.695
Cooperation behaviors training 0.916 0.928 0.810
variables, as they could significantly affect emergency preparedness
drill 0.936
behaviors according to previous literature (Eisenman et al., 2006; volunteer 0.846
McNeill et al., 2013; Miceli et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009; Paek et al.,
2010). Note: Stockpiling behavior is a single-item construct.

85
Y. Hong, et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91

Table 2
Correlations between constructs.
Construct Media exposure Risk perception Disaster Experience Cooperation behaviors Stockpiling behaviors

Media exposure 0.731

Risk perception 0.122** 0.897
Disaster Experience 0.144** 0.090* 0.677
Cooperation behaviors 0.231** 0.116** 0.066 0.900
Stockpiling behaviors 0.279** 0.011 0.283** 0.156** –

Note: Diagonal elements are square roots of AVE, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

perception was positively correlated with cooperation behaviors, but
non-significantly with stockpiling behaviors. Hypotheses 3b and 4e
were thus not supported, while these results provided initial support for
the other hypotheses in this study.
4.2. Testing in regression models
In this study, emergency preparedness behaviors were categorized
as cooperation behaviors or stockpiling behaviors, breaking emergency
preparedness behaviors into two groups. As shown in Table 3, the re-
gression model was constructed with the control variables for co-
operation behaviors (Model 1). In Model 2, media exposure was con-
structed as a separate variable, and as a result, media exposure showed
a positive correlation with cooperative behaviors (Model 2, β = 0.25,
p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 1a was supported. In the stockpiling
behaviors group, we regressed variables on stockpiling behavior in the
same way and constructed Model 6, and Model 7 (Table 4). The results
showed that media exposure had a significant relationship with stock-
piling behaviors (Model 7, β = 0.55, p < 0.001), meaning that Hy-
pothesis 1b was also supported. Then, we constructed regression
models for risk perception in Table 5. The regression model was firstly
constructed using the control variables (Model 10). Then, in Model 11,
media exposure was entered; the result showed that media exposure
had a positive effect on risk perception (Model 11, β = 0.09,
p = 0.046). Hypothesis 2 was thus supported.

Table 3
Results of regression for cooperation behavior.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5

β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI

LL UL LL UL LL UL LL UL LL UL

GE 0.01 −0.10 0.12 0.01 −0.09 0.11 0.01 −0.09 0.11 0.01 −0.09 0.11 −0.00 −0.11 0.10
AG 0.02 −0.03 0.06 0.02 −0.03 0.06 0.02 −0.03 0.06 0.02 −0.03 0.06 0.02 −0.03 0.06
EDU 0.06* 0.01 0.01 0.03 −0.03 0.08 0.03 −0.03 0.08 0.03 −0.03 0.08 0.02 −0.03 0.08
FIC −0.01 −0.06 0.04 −0.02 −0.07 0.02 −0.03 −0.08 0.02 −0.02 −0.08 0.03 −0.03 −0.07 0.02
ME 0.25** 0.16 0.33 0.24** 0.16 0.32 0.39** 0.25 0.54 0.38** 0.23 0.52
EX 0.13 −0.16 0.43 2.04** 0.52 3.56 1.84* 0.32 3.37
ME × EX −0.56* −0.99 −0.12 −0.51* −0.95 −0.07
RP 0.07* 0.003 0.15
R2 0.01 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07
F 1.40 8.10* 6.88** 6.84** 6.54**
ΔR2 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.01
ΔF 1.40 36.63** 0.78 6.29* 4.21*

Note. GE = Gender, 1 = men, 2 = women; AG = Age, 1 = 20 and younger, 2 = 21 to 30, 3 = 31 to 40, 4 = 40 to 50, 5 = 50 to 60, 6 = older than 60;
EDU = Education, 1 = middle school and lower, 2 = high school, 3 = junior college, 4 = bachelor's degree, 5 = master's degree and higher. FIC=Family Income
(RMB per year), 1 = lower than 30,000, 2 = 30,000 to 80,000, 3 = 80,000 to 120,000, 4 = 120,000 to 200,000, 5 = 200,000 to 300,000, 6 = 300,000 to 1,000,000,
7 = more than 1,000,000; ME = Media exposure; EX = Disaster experiences; ME × EX = Interaction item of ME and EX; RP = Risk perception.

Table 4
Results of regression for stockpiling behavior.
Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9

β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI

LL UL LL UL LL UL LL UL

GE −0.01 −0.21 0.19 −0.02 −0.21 0.18 0.01 −0.18 0.20 0.01 −0.18 0.20
AG 0.06 −0.03 0.15 0.07 −0.02 0.15 0.02 −0.07 0.1 0.02 −0.07 0.10
EDU 0.09 −0.02 0.20 0.01 −0.09 0.12 0.00 −0.1 0.11 0.00 −0.10 0.11
FIC 0.15** 0.05 0.24 0.12** 0.03 0.22 0.10* 0.01 0.18 0.09* 0.00 0.18
ME 0.55** 0.40 0.71 0.48** 0.33 0.63 0.40** 0.14 0.67
EX 1.77** 1.23 2.31 0.83 −1.97 3.62
ME × EX 0.28 −0.53 1.08
R2 0.03 0.09 0.15 0.15
F 4.75** 13.85** 19.20** 16.51**
ΔR2 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.00
ΔF 4.75** 48.95** 41.78* 0.46

86
Y. Hong, et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91

4.3. Testing moderation models
To test the moderating effect of experiences on the relationship
between media exposure and risk perception as well as the relationship
between media exposure and emergency preparedness behaviors, we
followed the procedure provided by Aiken and West (1991), and tested
the conditional effects using the Johnson–Neyman technique. We firstly
entered experiences based on Model 11 to construct Model 12. Then,
we entered the interaction item (media exposure and experiences), in
Model 13. The result showed that the effect of the interaction item was
significant (Model 13, β = −0.65, p = 0.006). Hypothesis 4c was thus
supported. In order to understand the moderating effect of experience
between media exposure and risk perception, we divided participants
into three groups based on experiences of disaster (Fig. 2): Group I:
High Experience (+1 SD), Group II: Mean Experience (Mean), Group
III: Low Experience (−1 SD). Fig. 2a shows the linear relationship be-
tween media exposure and risk perception for each group. The analysis
showed that disaster experience played a role as a moderator in the
relationship between media exposure and risk perception, which means
that the more people with disaster experience, the less effective media
exposure to risk perception. Fig. 2b shows the results of applying the
Johnson–Neyman technique to evaluate the statistical significance of
each group. The gray band represents the 99% confidence interval
limits, and as long as the horizontal zeros are included in the band, the
linear slope of media exposure and risk perception is not statistically
significant since it is not identifiable at zero. The vertical dotted line
indicates where the lower or upper confidence bands traverse the zero-
line. For example, changes in disaster experience result in a statistically
significant reduction in the rate of change in media exposure and risk
perception. Group III, with the low disaster experience, had the highest
effect of media exposure (95% CI: [0.0736, 0.3194]). In Group I and
Group II, which experienced many disasters, the slope change in media
exposure and risk perception was not statistically significant. Although
media exposure had little impact on risk perception change, risk per-
ception in Group I was higher than the other groups regardless of media
exposure, meaning this group is highly likely to prepare for a disaster in
advance. Therefore, Hypothesis 4c was supported.
We tested the moderating effect of experiences on the relationship
between media exposure and emergency preparedness behaviors in the
same way, and constructed Model 3 and Model 4 for cooperation be-
havior, as well as Model 8 and Model 9 for stockpiling behaviors. The
results showed that the moderating effect of experiences on the re-
lationship between media exposure and cooperation behaviors was
significant (Model 4, β = −0.56, p = 0.012), which means that the
more disaster individuals experienced, the weaker the media exposure
effect on cooperation behaviors (Fig. 3a). Fig. 3b also shows that the
conditional slope of media exposure (the predictor) on cooperation
behavior differs significantly from the point experience (the mod-
erator) = 0.453 and lower (e.g., at −1 SD, mean, and 1 SD). Therefore,
hypothesis 4a was supported. The moderating role of disaster experi-
ence is not significant for the relationship between media exposure and
stockpiling (Model 9, β = 0.28, p = 0.500). Therefore, Hypothesis 4b
was not supported.
4.4. Testing mediation models
To test the mediating role of risk perception between media ex-
posure and emergency preparedness cooperation behaviors, we fol-
lowed the testing procedure provide by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010),
using PROCESS (Model 4), provided by Hayes (Hayes, 2013). We esti-
mated 5,000 bootstrap samples in which the independent variables
were media exposure, the mediator was risk perception, and the de-
pendent variables were emergency preparedness cooperation beha-
viors. We also included gender, age, education, and family income as
covariates in the model. The results indicate that risk perception par-
tially mediated the relationship between media exposure and co-
operation behaviors (indirect effect = 0. 0075; 95% CI: [0.001,
0.0233]; direct effect = 0.2386, 95% CI: [0.1565, 0.3206]). Therefore,
Hypothesis 3a was supported.
4.5. Testing mediated moderation models
To test mediated moderation of Hypothesis 4d, we followed the
conditions provided by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005). (1) In the
regression of dependent variable on independent variable, moderator,
and interaction item, the coefficient of interaction item was significant
(Model 4, β = −0.56, p = 0.012). (2) In the regression of mediator on
independent variable, moderator, and interaction item, the coefficient
of interaction item was significant (Model 13, β = −0.65, p = 0.006).
(3) In the regression of dependent variable on independent variable,
moderator, mediator, and interaction item, the coefficient of mediator
was significant (Model 5, β = 0.07, p = 0.041), and the effect of in-
teraction item decreased (Model 5). Therefore, Hypothesis 4d was
supported. We also used the PROCESS (Model 8) and estimated 5,000
bootstrap samples. The mediating effect of risk perception on the re-
lationship between the interaction item (media exposure and disaster
experiences) and emergency preparedness cooperation behaviors is
negatively significant (β = −0.0485; 95% CI: [-0.1332, −0.0020]),
which means that, the more disaster individuals experienced, the less
strongly media exposure related to cooperation behaviors through risk
perception. Hypothesis 4d was thus supported. The results of hypothesis
testing are shown in Table 6.

Table 5
Results of regression on risk perception.
Model 10 Model 11 Model 12 Model 13

Β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI β 95% CI

LL UL LL UL LL UL LL UL

GE 0.14* 0.03 0.25 0.14* 0.03 0.25 0.14* 0.03 0.25 0.14* 0.03 0.25
AG −0.01 −0.06 0.04 −0.01 −0.06 0.04 −0.02 −0.07 0.03 −0.20 −0.07 0.03
EDU 0.09* 0.03 0.15 0.08** 0.02 0.14 0.08** 002 0.14 0.08* 0.02 0.14
FIC 0.02 −0.03 0.07 0.01 −0.04 0.07 0.01 −0.04 0.06 0.01 −0.04 0.06
ME 0.09* 0.002 0.18 0.08 −0.01 0.16 0.26** 0.10 0.41
EX 0.35* 0.04 0.66 2.58** 0.98 4.19
ME × EX −0.65** −1.12 −0.19
R2 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06
F 6.57** 6.01** 5.90** 6.21**
ΔR2 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01
ΔF 6.57** 3.99* 4.83* 7.75**

87
Y. Hong, et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91

Fig. 2. Moderating effect of disaster experiences on the relationship between media exposure (ME) and risk perception (RP). a. Interaction between experience and
media exposure on risk perception. b. Conditional effect of media exposure on risk perception. The relationship between media exposure and risk perception as a
function of experience is shown using the Johnson-Neyman technique. The polygon shaded in dark grey displays a 99 percent confidence interval.

Fig. 3. Moderating effect of disaster experiences on the relationship between media exposure (ME) and cooperation behavior (CB). a. Interaction between experience
and media exposure on cooperation behavior. b. Conditional effect of media exposure on cooperation behavior. The relationship between media exposure and
cooperation behavior as a function of experience is shown using the Johnson-Neyman technique. The polygon shaded in dark grey displays a 99 percent confidence
interval.

5. Discussion and conclusion
This study analyzed the influence of media exposure on household
emergency preparedness behaviors. Emergency preparedness is a hot
research topic in the field of emergency management, and previous
studies have conducted extensive empirical research, especially on the
factors influencing emergency preparedness behaviors. However, in-
vestigations of the mechanism by which media exposure impacts on
emergency preparedness behaviors have been relatively scarce. In this
study, we constructed regression models for media exposure, risk per-
ception, and emergency preparedness behaviors, and conducted an
empirical analysis and the Johnson–Neyman analysis taking to account

88
Y. Hong, et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91

Table 6 content to raise individuals' awareness of emergency preparedness. This

Results of hypotheses testing. content can include documentaries and micro-documentaries gathering
Hypotheses Results Hypotheses Results the recollections of survivors, hearing commentary from journalists,
and reviewing the historical events. The collective memory will be re-
ME—— > EPCB H1a: supported H4a: supported constructed appropriately by “newsgathering,” and then strengthening
ME—— > EPSB H1b: supported H4b: not the cognition, attitude, and behavior towards public emergency pre-
supported paredness. Besides, with the development of information and commu-
ME—— > RP H2: supported H4c: supported
nication technology, especially the widespread application of the “We-
ME—— > RP—— > EPCB H3a: supported H4d: supported media,” any individual can become a subject of the spread of public
ME—— > RP—— > EPSB H3b: not H4e: not security awareness. User-generated content (UGC) has become an im-
supported supported
portant resource of materials to increase individuals’ perception of
emergency preparedness, whether self-perceived or objective. Through
the effective combination of new and traditional media platforms,
for the inhomogeneity of in-group regression. Most of the study hy-
various forms of public safety content can be transmitted to the public
potheses were supported.
in a seamless, comprehensive and real-time manner.
First, media exposure can influence on emergency preparedness
This study also illustrates that media exposure has a positive effect
behaviors by increasing warning, social pressure, and self-efficacy.
on risk perception and emergency cooperation behaviors, greater
Murphy et al. (2009), and Paek et al. (2010) both found that media
among individuals with lower disaster experiences. In general, age was
exposure could positively impact the preparedness behaviors in the
positively correlated with disaster experience, so that media exposure
United States. The present study confirmed these results in the culture
can be more useful to young people with little disaster experience.
and media environment of China. Second, existing literature has re-
Therefore, a combination of improved media communication and
vealed the relationship between media exposure and risk perception
school education could have a positive impact on improving risk per-
(Fleming et al., 2006; Morton & Duck, 2001; Yim & Vaganov, 2003),
ception and emergency cooperation behaviors during disasters.
and that between risk perception and emergency preparedness behavior
Notably, to promote emergency cooperation behaviors, such as at-
(De Dominicis et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2007; Miceli et al., 2008;
tending emergency skills training, taking part in an emergency drill, or
Miceli et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009; McNeill et al., 2013; Paton,
attending emergency volunteer services, schools and universities need
2003), but did not consider the mediating effect of risk perception on
to release safety knowledge and disaster news through various media.
the relationship between media exposure and emergency preparedness
More accessible media resources may include campus websites, campus
behaviors. In this study, we further analyzed the mediating effect of risk
TV, campus broadcast, campus newspapers, etc. Schools and uni-
perception on this relationship. The empirical results confirmed that
versities should purchase and promote relevant security-informational
media exposure partly influences emergency cooperation behaviors
videos and documentaries and should encourage students to obtain
through risk perception. However, the mediating effect was not sig-
disaster information through various media.
nificant for emergency stockpiling behaviors. This is because people can
Moreover, media organizations should provide more comprehensive
easily stockpile resources when knowledge increases and warnings or
coverage of disaster news and produce more disaster documentaries for
social pressures are detected. In addition, the stockpiles that people
young people. However, the content for young people is usually frag-
reserved can be used not only in response to disasters but also in ev-
mented and sometimes false, spreads on different platforms, and will
eryday life, so the reserve does not need to threaten their fear. Finally,
cause misunderstanding and fatigue because the young people always
media exposure's effect on risk perception and emergency preparedness
have an immature mind and weak discrimination. Therefore, school
behaviors has a limit. Paek et al. (2010) used past experience as a
should first gather effective, authentic materials, and then customize
control variable but did not emphasize the important role in the re-
and actively push the contents to the young people according to their
lationship between media exposure and emergency preparedness be-
needs, to maximize its value.
haviors.
The production and spreading of disaster news and documentaries
In this study, we investigated the moderating effect of disaster ex-
can also be used to increase individuals’ disaster learning. Although
periences in the pathway from media exposure to emergency pre-
emergency preparedness behaviors in those with greater disasters ex-
paredness. The results showed that disaster experiences significantly
periences were less sensitive to media exposure, the level of risk per-
weaken the positive relationship between media exposure and risk
ception and emergency preparedness behaviors were both higher than
perception as well as the positive relationship between media exposure
in those with fewer disaster experiences. According to social learning
and emergency preparedness behaviors. Moreover, the effect of the
theory, individuals do not have to learn through their disaster experi-
interaction of media exposure and disaster experiences on emergency
ences but can adjust their emergency preparedness behaviors by ob-
preparedness cooperation behaviors was mediated by risk perception.
serving others' behaviors, such as in the news and on documentaries.
Although media exposure does not show a significant change in risk
Further, institutions like memorial days, disaster museums, and disaster
perception for those with a high level of disaster experience, it is im-
monuments can also be used to promote emergency preparedness be-
portant to continue to provide useful information to prepare for an
haviors.
emergency, regardless of people's disaster experience.
Based on this study, there is ample reason to believe that increasing
individuals' media exposure can increase risk perception and emer-
Acknowledgments
gency preparedness. On one hand, the media has an unparalleled ad-
vantage in setting issues before the public. In so doing, the media can,
This research is supported by the National Key R&D Program of
for example, create awareness of personal safety needs, build beha-
China (2017YFC0405901). This study was also supported by a grant
vioral frameworks for emergency preparedness, and develop value
from the Humanities and Social Science Funding of Hangzhou Dianzi
systems. It can also convey the definition of a safe household and
University (2016B02). The research data used in this study can be ob-
community, the most valuable safety knowledge and skills, the ability
tained from the Mendeley repository of http://dx.doi.org/10.17632/
to create safety, and the need to help others create security. The media
3hdc8296xh.5.
also has many professional creative talents that can create relevant

89
Y. Hong, et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.005.

Appendix

Table A.1
Question items for media exposure

Item Scale measurement Mean SD

1. How often do you read newspapers? Never Very often 3.15 1.01
2. How often do you read a magazine? 1 5 2.70 0.91
3. How often do you listen to the radio? 2.92 1.05
4. How often do you watch TV? 3.54 0.98
5. How often do you use the Internet? 3.97 1.09
6. How often do you use your mobile phone? 3.09 1.22

Table A.2
Question items for risk perception

Item Scale measurement Mean SD

1. Flood in your city is Not at all severe Extremely severe 3.24 0.86
2. Typhoon in your city is 1 5 3.35 0.88
3. Earthquake in your city is 3.53 1.06
4. Rainstorm in your city is 3.20 0.84
5. Freeze in your city is 2.96 0.85
6. Hailstone in your city is 2.97 0.83
7. Hyperthermia in your city is 3.06 0.84
8. Fire in your city is 3.20 0.83
9. Bomb in your city is 3.37 0.90
10. Traffic accident in your city is 3.61 1.02
11. Food poisoning in your city is 3.63 0.91
12. Infectious disease in your city is 3.66 0.98
13. Water pollution in your city is 3.37 0.96
14. Air pollution in your city is 3.68 0.99
15. Public security incidence in your city is 3.34 0.91
16. Riot in your city is 3.29 0.91

Table A.3
Question items for disaster experience

Item Scale measurement Mean SD

1. Have you ever experienced a flood? No Yes 0.35 0.51

2. Have you ever experienced a typhoon? 0 1 0.85 0.36
3. Have you ever experienced an earthquake? 0.10 0.30
4. Have you ever experienced a rainstorm? 0.73 0.44
5. Have you ever experienced a freeze? 0.23 0.42
6. Have you ever experienced a hailstone? 0.16 0.37
7. Have you ever experienced a hyperthermia? 0.72 0.45
8. Have you ever experienced a fire? 0.26 0.44
9. Have you ever experienced a bomb? 0.16 0.37
10. Have you ever experienced a traffic accident? 0.02 0.13
11. Have you ever experienced a food poisoning? 0.23 0.42
12. Have you ever experienced an infectious disease? 0.45 0.50
13. Have you ever experienced water pollution? 0.33 0.47
14. Have you ever experienced air pollution? 0.31 0.46
15. Have you ever experienced public security incidence? 0.17 0.38
16. Have you ever experienced riot? 0.14 0.35

Table A.4
Question items for emergency preparedness behaviors

Construct Item Scale measurement Mean SD

Cooperation 1. How often do you attend emergency skills training? Never Very often 3.29 0.75
Behaviors 2. How often do you take part in an emergency drill? 1 5 3.23 0.78
3. How often do you attend an emergency volunteer service? 3.21 0.77
(continued on next page)

90
Y. Hong, et al. Journal of Environmental Psychology 63 (2019) 82–91

Table A.4 (continued)

Construct Item Scale measurement Mean SD

Stockpiling Behaviors 4. Do you have a working flashlight? No Yes 0.75 0.44

5. Do you have a fire extinguisher? 0 1 0.52 0.50
6. Do you have fresh water and emergency food for 72 h? 0.58 0.49
7. Do you have a first aid kit? 0.45 0.50
8. Do you have a gas mask? 0.07 0.26
9. Do you have a cloth face mask? 0.27 0.45

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
De Dominicis, S., Fornara, F., Ganucci Cancellieri, U., Twigger-Ross, C., & Bonaiuto, M.
(2015). We are at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental risk percep-
tions and preventive coping behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 43,
66–78.
Eisenman, D. P., Wold, C., Fielding, J., Long, A., Setodji, C., Hickey, S., et al. (2006).
Differences in individual-level terrorism preparedness in los angeles county. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(1), 1–6.
Ejeta, L. T., Ardalan, A., & Paton, D. (2011). Application of behavioral theories to disaster
and emergency health preparedness: A systematic review. Plos Currents, 7.
Fleming, K., Thorson, E., & Zhang, Y. (2006). Going beyond exposure to local news media:
An information-processing examination of public perceptions of food safety. Journal
of Health Communication, 11(8), 789–806.
Fomell, C., & Larker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with un-
observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,
39–50.
Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2010). Cooperative behavior cascades in human social
networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(12), 5334–5338.
Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Lewis, F. M. (2002). Health behavior and health education: Theory,
research and practice. San Francisco: Wiley & Sons.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(3),
335–337.
Holbert, L. R., Kwak, N., & Shah, D. V. (2003). Environmental concerns, patterns of tel-
evision viewing, and pro-environmental behaviors: Integrating models of media
consumption and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(1), 177–196.
Kapucu, N. (2008). Culture of preparedness: Household disaster preparedness. Disaster
Prevention and Management, 17(4), 526–535.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., et al. (1988). The
social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8(2), 177–187.
Keselman, A., Slaughter, L., & Patel, V. L. (2005). Toward a framework for understanding
lay public's comprehension of disaster and bioterrorism information. Journal of
Biomedical Informatics, 38(4), 331–344.
Kurzban, R., & Houser, D. (2005). Experiments investigating cooperative types in hu-
mans: A complement to evolutionary theory and simulations. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 102(5), 1803–1807.
Lee, K. (2011). The role of media exposure, social exposure and biospheric value or-
ientation in the environmental attitude-intention-behavior model in adolescents.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), 301–308.
Levac, J., Toal-Sullivan, D., & O'Sullivan, T. L. (2012). Household emergency prepared-
ness: A literature review. Journal of Community Health, 37(3), 725–733.
Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012). The protective action decision model: Theoretical
modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 616–632.
Martin, I. M., Bender, H., & Raish, C. (2007). What motivates individuals to protect
themselves from risks: The case of wildland fires. Risk Analysis, 27(4), 887–900.
McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2002). News influence on our pictures of the world.
Advances in Theory and Research, 1–18.
McNeill, I. M., Dunlop, P. D., Heath, J. B., Skinner, T. C., & Morrison, D. L. (2013).
Expecting the unexpected: Predicting physiological and psychological wildfire pre-
paredness from perceived risk, responsibility, and obstacles. Risk Analysis, 33(10),
1829–1843.
Miceli, R., Sotgiu, I., & Settanni, M. (2008). Disaster preparedness and perception of flood
risk: A study in an alpine valley in Italy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2),
164–173.
Morton, T. A., & Duck, J. M. (2001). Communication and health beliefs: Mass and in-
terpersonal influences on perceptions of risk to self and others. Communication
Research, 28(28), 602–626.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2005). When moderation is mediated and
mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852–863.
Murphy, S. T., Cody, M., Frank, L. B., Glik, D., & Ang, A. (2009). Predictors of emergency
preparedness and compliance. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 7,
S1–S8.
Mutz, D. C. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political
attitudes. Cambridge University Press.
Paek, H. J., Hilyard, K., Freimuth, V., Barge, J. K., & Mindlin, M. (2010). Theory-based
approaches to understanding public emergency preparedness: Implications for ef-
fective health and risk communication. Journal of Health Communication, 15(4),
428–444.
Paton, D. (2003). Disaster preparedness: A social-cognitive perspective. Disaster Prevention
and Management, 12(3), 210–216.
Perry, R. W., & Mushkatel, A. H. (2008). Minority citizens in disasters. University of Georgia
Press.
Perse, E. M. (2001). Media effects and society. Routledge.
Renn, O. (1998). The role of risk perception for risk management. Reliability Engineering &
System Safety, 59(1), 49–62.
Rohrmann, B. (1998). The risk notion: Epistemological and empirical considerations.
Integrative Risk Assessment, 39–46.
Siegrist, M., & Gutscher, H. (2006). Flooding risks: A comparison of lay people's per-
ceptions and expert's assessments in Switzerland. Risk Analysis, 26(4), 971–979.
Sjöberg, L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20(1), 1–11.
Tomio, J., Sato, H., Matsuda, Y., Koga, T., & Mizumura, H. (2014). Household and
community disaster preparedness in Japanese provincial city: A population-based
household survey. Advances in Anthropology, 4(2), 68–77.
Twigg, J. (2004). Disaster risk reduction: Mitigation and preparedness in development and
emergency programming. Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
UNISDR (2009). UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction. United Nations Office for
Disaster Risk Reduction.
Yim, M. S., & Vaganov, P. A. (2003). Effects of education on nuclear risk perception and
attitude: Theory. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 42(2), 221–235.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering baron and kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197–206.
Zhu, W., & Yao, N. (2018). Public risk perception and intention to take actions on city
smog in China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2018.1471340.

91